Posted 4 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 1:36 p.m. EST by arealpolitik
(154)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Coming up so close behind Romney in Iowa he could smell his sweat has former senator Santorum feeling rather cocky and full of himself. As a result, his initial penetration into New Hampshire, seeking to fill the gap in the polls, involves making people come to grips with his throbbing passion over gays. So far it’s looking very sloppy, with more friction than he expected:

As he campaigns among the state’s notoriously grumpy electorate, presidential candidate Rick Santorum has spent as much time arguing with prospective voters over same-sex marriage as he has asking them for their support. [...]

“I have a question and it’s about gay people,” asked the first man to be called on at a Santorum town hall meeting here today. “They are children of God too. Do they have the right to marriage? Do they have the right to serve in the military? Should they be treated like any other citizen? Under your presidency, would you protect their rights or would you diminish them?”

Santorum answered that he doesn’t believe marriage or serving in the military are inalienable rights, but “privileges,” adding, “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges.”

Clearly, Santorum never had a chance of winning this man’s affection.

Undeterred, he sashayed on down the road to press the flesh at a college prep school in Dublin, where the young students came at him with hard questions, prompting Santorum to unleash his passions with a particular thrust:

“You’re robbing children of something that they need, they deserve, they have a right to. They have a right to be know and be loved by their dad or their mom,” he said. “That’s what marriage is about. It’s not about two people loving each other.

Rick doesn’t seem to realize how deep he went with this. He may think he’s simply smearing gays, but unzip this firm statement and you come to see it spreads much further, covering not only the gays that Santorum has his mind so focused on but also adults in positions such as being single parents, or couples that don’t particularly want children.

Ironically for how he approaches the climax of his view on this, to spit that marriage is not about love is to split the meaning of such a connection, hardening it into little more than a three-way contract. For a stiff expression of values to shrivel down to the cold unloving fist of government…that really screws any semblance of sincerity.

To call with a straight face, in these times, for the state to serve as the hand of god is not a ballsy move. It is mere demonstration one is not using their head.

Not to demean religiosity, but considering there's absolutely no proof behind this idea, and considering there's good neurobiological, sociological, and evolutionary explanations for why our imaginations concocted this fiction in the first place, I think the idea of GOD is a shaky foundation for liberty. Just a philosophical pet peeve of mine. I mean, if people really want to rest the idea of human liberty on something imaginary, it doesn't really bother me that much, but I guess what does bother me is putting so much stock in a god man, who preached nothing but love, peace, helping the poor, rejection of material wealth in favor of themes like community and solidarity, etc. etc., yet behaving in ways that are exactly opposite to those principles.

I'm certainly not saying atheists have always been the best example of human goodness (at least not historically, although I would argue atheism has evolved quite a bit since Stalin, Pol Pot, et al), but seriously Christians, and even Muslims (if anyone bothers to read past the version of this religion presented by modern extremists, and looks at Muhammad, the man, at least in the beginning, you'll find a guy who was primarily concerned about treatment of the poor in his society), would you guys please study your own religions a little more in depth?